Re: Update on UCI Motion

On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:02 PM, Haytham Faraj wrote:

Your honor,
In light of your email, I feel it necessary to clear up some
misunderstandings. When I appeared in 39a's for both Vega and Brito, I
informed the trial judges that Wuterich was scheduled for Nov 2. I think
one of those cases was already scheduled for that period anyway. As you
recall Wuterich was supposed to go in September so November was open to
schedule cases. The trial judges were also aware of our Hutchins motions in
October. They, therefore, placed the cases on the docket with the
understanding that those cases would be moved if Wuterich went as scheduled.
In response to inquiries regarding my availability next week, trial counsel
in those cases have been informed that those cases would have to be moved
because Wuterich takes precedence. I didn't schedule those cases. I merely
agreed with the military judge's recommendation that the cases be double
docketed in the remote possibility that Wuterich moves.

Vr,
Haytham Faraj

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones LtCol David M [mailto:david.m.jones5@usmc.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:46 PM
To: Gannon Maj Nicholas L; Haytham Faraj
Cc: Neal Puckett; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R; Rubin
LtCol Peter R
Subject: RE: Update on UCI Motion

Counsel,

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not official until they are read
into the record of trial, and can further be added to / changed at any time
prior to authentication for accuracy. However, for your planning purposes,
and in light of the Stay filed by the defense, I am attaching a "rough" of
my ruling for your assistance. I anticipate going to trial next Tuesday,
the 2nd of November. I expect all parties to be there unless the Stay that
has been granted.

Major Gannon, please set up an 802 for this case for. I understand from
Judge Rubin that Mr. Faraj has scheduled Brito and Vega to go next week. I
would like to know why.

R,

LtCol David M. Jones
Military Judge
Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Office: 645-7287 / 2156
Fax: 645-2035
From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156

-----Original Message-----
From: Gannon Maj Nicholas L
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:09
To: Jones LtCol David M; 'Haytham Faraj'
Cc: 'Neal Puckett'; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R
Subject: RE: Update on UCI Motion

Your Honor,

After discussing this issue with the defense, government agrees, we will not
need an Article 39a session on 11 and 12 October 2010.

My recollection is that our plan is to have the Members seated at 1200 on 2
November 2010. We will voir dire the Members on 2 November.

We will start with opening statements and evidentiary presentation at 0830
on 3 November 2010, unless Member selection is completed before 1500 on 2
November 2010.

Is this correct Your Honor?

Very respectfully,
Major Gannon

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones LtCol David M
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:15
To: Haytham Faraj
Cc: 'Neal Puckett'; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R; Gannon
Maj Nicholas L
Subject: RE: Update on UCI Motion

All,

This means that we do not need any session on 11 and 12 October and that the
next session of court will be at 0830 on 2 November. Members to arrive at
1200. Are both parties agreed?

R,

LtCol David M. Jones
Military Judge
Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Office: 645-7287 / 2156
Fax: 645-2035
From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156

-----Original Message-----
From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 21:09
To: Jones LtCol David M
Cc: 'Neal Puckett'; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R; Gannon
Maj Nicholas L
Subject: Update on UCI Motion

Your honor,
We are providing notice that the defense will not be filing a UCI motion.

Vr,

Haytham Faraj, Esq.
PUCKETT & FARAJ, PC
_______________________
WASHINGTON DC METRO
1800 Diagonal Road
Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-706-0442 Phone

DETROIT METRO
6200 Schaefer Road
Suite 202
Dearborn, MI 48126
313-457-1390 Phone
202-280-1039 Fax

www.puckettfaraj.com

The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is
intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not
the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any
use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify
Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 888-970-0005 or via a return the e-mail to
sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading
or making any copy or distribution.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones LtCol David M [mailto:david.m.jones5@usmc.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:20 AM
To: Gannon Maj Nicholas L
Cc: Haytham Faraj; Neal Puckett; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt
Matthew R
Subject: RE: Additional Evidence ICO U.S. v. Wuterich

In receipt, thank you.

R,

LtCol David M. Jones
Military Judge
Western Pacific Judicial Circuit
Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Office: 645-7287 / 2156
Fax: 645-2035
From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156

-----Original Message-----
From: Gannon Maj Nicholas L
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:34
To: Jones LtCol David M
Cc: Haytham Faraj; Neal Puckett; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt
Matthew R
Subject: Additional Evidence ICO U.S. v. Wuterich

Your Honor,

The government respectfully requests that the Court consider the following
additional evidence in the case of U.S. v. Wuterich, specifically, on the
defense motion to dismiss of 26 August 2010 ("Hutchins Motion").

I have attached General Mattis' testimony from our previous 39a Session in
March 2010. Specifically, the government respectfully requests that the
Court consider the following cross-examination questions of General Mattis:

The is from pages 37-38 of the attached transcript:

"Questions by the defense (continued):

Q. General, you have gone to great lengths as a convening authority in these
cases and in the Hamdaniyah cases to ensure, as you put it, to be the
convening authority for both the prosecution and the defense?

A. Exactly.

Q. In fact, I personally remember you calling me once and making sure --
when I was still in uniform -- that I had everything I needed as a defense
counsel.

A. [The witness nods head in the affirmative.]

Q. I got a personal call from you and you asked if I had everything I
needed. And so you were going to great lengths to make sure that the process
was fair?

A. I did my best.

Q. Is that a fair --

A. Yes."

Very respectfully,
Maj Gannon